Building a Music File

[jackowens]

Dear Friends,

 

For an anniversary dance, I'm trying to construct a 4-hour file of individual 78 rpm (shellac) and 45 rpm records on the hard drive of my laptop using the Sound Editor of Roxio Easy Media Creator 7. However, I don't want to do 4 hours of recording in one sitting.

 

What I can't figure out is how to a) save and close out a session and then, for another session, open up the file and start from where I left off.

 

When I open the file after the first session of recording, I can't move to the end of that file to continue with another session. The slider at the bottom of the window to move the file to its end, so that I can start with the next piece, doesn't work.

 

Anyone familiar with how I can do what I have in mind?

 

Regards to all from

 

Jack Owens

[tbrewst]

I can't remember in 7 but in later versions you can Join clips together.

Look in the Help files to see if you can find anything on it.

Some one (Brendon?) might have this loaded still and be able to answer better.

Edited November 28, 2009 by tbrewst

[grandpabruce]

Dear Friends,

 

For an anniversary dance, I'm trying to construct a 4-hour file of individual 78 rpm (shellac) and 45 rpm records on the hard drive of my laptop using the Sound Editor of Roxio Easy Media Creator 7. However, I don't want to do 4 hours of recording in one sitting.

 

What I can't figure out is how to a) save and close out a session and then, for another session, open up the file and start from where I left off.

 

When I open the file after the first session of recording, I can't move to the end of that file to continue with another session. The slider at the bottom of the window to move the file to its end, so that I can start with the next piece, doesn't work.

 

Anyone familiar with how I can do what I have in mind?

 

Regards to all from

 

Jack Owens

 

I don't have Version 7 loaded anymore, and the Sound Editor, in EMC 7, is a whole different animal than what the newer versions have.

 

You can get the cursor to the end of the first session. One way to do it is to highlight the entire wav form, place the cursor at the end of that highlighted clip, then add you next audio clip.

 

But, what happens if you open an existing file, then try to add another music file. I am sure that I was able to do that, when I used EMC 7.

[sknis]

Why don't you just make a playlist. burn it to a image file, create a virtual disc and play that? In the long run, it may be easier.

[d_deweywright]

Why don't you just make a playlist. burn it to a image file, create a virtual disc and play that? In the long run, it may be easier.

My thoughts exactly. Record each song separately, or each side of a 78 separately, work with each file individually, then when you've got everything captured and ready, add each track to your Music CD project, and burn that. If you just make one huge audio file, and burn it, you're final CD will show 1 track, and you won't be able to index to each track.

 

For what you have now, I'd break each song out into its own .WAV file.

 

Hope that helps!

[jackowens]

Thanks to all for the responses.

 

After playing around with the Sound Editor a bit more, I think I can now open a previous session and add to it.

 

The problem now, when opening a previous session, is in how to save both a) that previous session AND what I've added to it without having to replace the previous session.

 

To explain, when one types a .rtf file and closes it, it can be opened and further text can be added and saved without having to replace the original file. But when I try to save both the previously recorded session in Sound Editor along with what I've added to it in a new session, the save window tells me that the file, as named, already exists and asks if I want to replace it.

 

If I replace, my fear is that with each replacement of successive sessions in the future, if I want to add stuff, the sound-quality of the previous sessions will begin to deteriorate.

 

As of now I'm hung up there. The specific question I have at this point is, does anyone know how to simply add to the file without having to replace the whole thing each time?

 

Another point to save confusion: the four-hour file is to be played straight through without stopping or selecting.

 

[sknis]

Did you read posts 4 and 5 above? Why not (read or if you read, do)?

[Jim_Hardin]

Thanks to all for the responses.

 

After playing around with the Sound Editor a bit more, I think I can now open a previous session and add to it.

 

The problem now, when opening a previous session, is in how to save both a) that previous session AND what I've added to it without having to replace the previous session.

 

To explain, when one types a .rtf file and closes it, it can be opened and further text can be added and saved without having to replace the original file. But when I try to save both the previously recorded session in Sound Editor along with what I've added to it in a new session, the save window tells me that the file, as named, already exists and asks if I want to replace it.

 

If I replace, my fear is that with each replacement of successive sessions in the future, if I want to add stuff, the sound-quality of the previous sessions will begin to deteriorate.

 

As of now I'm hung up there. The specific question I have at this point is, does anyone know how to simply add to the file without having to replace the whole thing each time?

 

Another point to save confusion: the four-hour file is to be played straight through without stopping or selecting.

If you are really worried that, that scenario is even possible… Why not create a TEST case instead of this wild speculation?

 

Then you will know.

 

[d_deweywright]

Thanks to all for the responses.

 

After playing around with the Sound Editor a bit more, I think I can now open a previous session and add to it.

 

The problem now, when opening a previous session, is in how to save both a) that previous session AND what I've added to it without having to replace the previous session.

 

To explain, when one types a .rtf file and closes it, it can be opened and further text can be added and saved without having to replace the original file. But when I try to save both the previously recorded session in Sound Editor along with what I've added to it in a new session, the save window tells me that the file, as named, already exists and asks if I want to replace it.

 

If I replace, my fear is that with each replacement of successive sessions in the future, if I want to add stuff, the sound-quality of the previous sessions will begin to deteriorate.

 

As of now I'm hung up there. The specific question I have at this point is, does anyone know how to simply add to the file without having to replace the whole thing each time?

 

Another point to save confusion: the four-hour file is to be played straight through without stopping or selecting.

Your analogy with a .RTF file isn't correct, when you say you don't "replace the original file". Actually, you do replace the original .RTF file, it's just that Wordpad, or whatever you're using, doesn't ask you to verify that you want to do that, where sound editor does. Sound Editor does a "save as" instead of a simple "save". So, don't worry about that. (As in, you can't go back in and edit the .RTF file as it looked before you edited it, it's been overwritten when you saved it.)

 

As for the sound quality, until you "export clip", or something like that, nothing is actually being done to the original file. All you're doing is telling Sound Editor what clips to use, and what filters to apply, and when as the file is being played back, but the original file isn't changing until you export to a new .WAV or .MP3 file. (Work with .WAV so you don't lose quality in the MP3 compression.)

 

How do you plan to play this 4 hour long file? I guess I'm still questioning why you wouldn't want to work with each track individually, and then build a playlist in Winamp, or Sound Editor, or Media Player to play all your completed tracks? Or are you doing lots of overlapping from one song into the next?

[jackowens]

Thanks to all for your continuing interest and help.

 

To Digital Guru d_deweywright:

 

I believe I read somewhere that the .tif file-format, in contrast to the .jpg, is "lossless". I assumed that that meant that the copying (replacing) of certain file-formats can result in the deterioration of quality, and that that might start occurring in the case of the discrete sessions that I might be involved in.

 

Has that any validity?

 

"How do you plan to play this 4 hour long file?"

 

The file is for a dinner/dance. My plan is to set up two regular speakers (Spicas) along with a subwoofer. They will be fed from the 4-hour file on my HP Pavilion dv9700t laptop, going from its headphone jack into a preamplifier going into a power-amplifier. I intend to have an approximate 20-second silence between pieces.

 

At the appropriate moment, after the large majority of guests has finished dining, I turn on the setup and let it go without stop for the 4 hours or until the guests have gone.

 

As pointed out to me, what I have in mind isn't the only way to record the 78's and 45's to a 4-hour file, but is anyone saying it simply won't work? That's the main point and the one that interests me. Once I have the file --and before the dance, of course-- I plan on actually playing the whole thing through to see if there are any hangups.

 

Am I missing anything?

 

Regards to all, and thanks.

 

 

[d_deweywright]

Thanks to all for your continuing interest and help.

 

To Digital Guru d_deweywright:

 

I believe I read somewhere that the .tif file-format, in contrast to the .jpg, is "lossless". I assumed that that meant that the copying (replacing) of certain file-formats can result in the deterioration of quality, and that that might start occurring in the case of the discrete sessions that I might be involved in.

 

Has that any validity?

 

"How do you plan to play this 4 hour long file?"

 

The file is for a dinner/dance. My plan is to set up two regular speakers (Spicas) along with a subwoofer. They will be fed from the 4-hour file on my HP Pavilion dv9700t laptop, going from its headphone jack into a preamplifier going into a power-amplifier. I intend to have an approximate 20-second silence between pieces.

 

At the appropriate moment, after the large majority of guests has finished dining, I turn on the setup and let it go without stop for the 4 hours or until the guests have gone.

 

As pointed out to me, what I have in mind isn't the only way to record the 78's and 45's to a 4-hour file, but is anyone saying it simply won't work? That's the main point and the one that interests me. Once I have the file --and before the dance, of course-- I plan on actually playing the whole thing through to see if there are any hangups.

 

Am I missing anything?

 

Regards to all, and thanks.

Okay... so, now we have a more apt analogy. We can compare the lossless .TIF file format to a .WAV file, and a compressed .JPG file to a compressed .MP3 file. Opening, editing, and resaving a .WAV file should not result in any "loss" with each generation of file, as it would with a .MP3 file which would get re-encoded each time. But, part of the question here is Sound Editor, and I have to confess that I missed version 7, and went to version 7.5 of ECDC, so I'm not sure exactly what Sound Editor in version 7 looks like. If it's like what came with 7.5, then again, until you actually export a clip, you haven't changed the original file at all, so loss or sound degradation isn't even a consideration. And as long as you're working with .WAV files, then there's no encoding, so opening and resaving won't cause any loss either.

 

The biggest consideration in my mind, especially with one 4 hour project, is to make sure you keep it backed up just in case something happens as you're working on it. Say you have 3 hours and 45 minutes done, and you go to add another file, and it crashes. As long as you have the previous version of 3 hours 40 minutes saved, you haven't lost much. So, keep incremental backups!

 

Hope that helps!

[jackowens]

Thanks for your input, d_deweywright. Much appreciated.

 

I'm planning on having the file in question on two separate laptops plus an external hard-drive AND I've arranged to have a disk-jockey with his equipment as a standby.

 

If there are no further suggestions to add, permit me to touch on a few final points.

 

I notice that there are a couple of options regarding how to handle mono vs stereo input. To start, all of my music will be from monaural sources. That being so, on my preamplifier I can select between stereo and mono, and I'm planning on using the mono option there.

 

In addition, when I save the file, one of the options is <Encoder:>, but the drop-down list does not give an alterantive to <PCM>.

 

Then there is <Audio format> wherein I presume I should select the <Mono> option with the <Bits per sample:> set at 16.

 

Any advice/suggestions there?

 

[d_deweywright]

Thanks for your input, d_deweywright. Much appreciated.

 

I'm planning on having the file in question on two separate laptops plus an external hard-drive AND I've arranged to have a disk-jockey with his equipment as a standby.

 

If there are no further suggestions to add, permit me to touch on a few final points.

 

I notice that there are a couple of options regarding how to handle mono vs stereo input. To start, all of my music will be from monaural sources. That being so, on my preamplifier I can select between stereo and mono, and I'm planning on using the mono option there.

 

In addition, when I save the file, one of the options is <Encoder:>, but the drop-down list does not give an alterantive to <PCM>.

 

Then there is <Audio format> wherein I presume I should select the <Mono> option with the <Bits per sample:> set at 16.

 

Any advice/suggestions there?

The encoder it wants to use (and apparently the only option) is PCM, which stands for Pulse Coded Modulation. That is a standard .WAV file, which is what you want. And 16 bits per sample is the CD Standard, even if you're not making a CD.

 

I would still ask why you want a single file, rather than individual tracks. And it's because having worked with digitizing LPs for the past 13 or 14 years, I've always found it easier to work with individual tracks. Yes, I capture an entire side of an LP, but then split it into component tracks. So, satisfy my curiosity, why?

 

As for mono or stereo, if your preamp actually sums the two channels together for the mono, that is the best option, because noise impulses (clicks and pops) are typically mostly in one channel or the other. When you sum the two channels, you get all the music, and only "half" of a click or pop that occurs in one channel, which can help keep the noise from that old shellac down.

 

Now, this may be nothing your interested in, but, if these records are not going to be played again, except maybe by you, you can play them wet, which can do phenomenal things for reducing noise. Truly, the difference can be remarkable. You may want to test this by first capturing one dry, then give it a good spritz with some distilled water. (I assume you're cleaning them as best you can prior to playing them?) Play it while wet. Compare the dry and wet recordings. The typical concept says that once you've played a record wet, trying to play it dry after that isn't a good idea. It will sound worse than it did originally, so it must always be played wet. But, once you have a good digitization, you probably won't need to go back to the original vinyl/shellac.

 

Hope that helps!

Edited December 1, 2009 by d_deweywright

[jackowens]

Thanks for your continued interest, d_deweywright.

 

I would still ask why you want a single file, rather than individual tracks. And it's because having worked with digitizing LPs for the past 13 or 14 years, I've always found it easier to work with individual tracks. Yes, I capture an entire side of an LP, but then split it into component tracks. So, satisfy my curiosity, why?

 

Now you have my curiosity aroused.

 

I'm assuming, from the previous posts on this thread, that what I have in mind will work, but you apparently see a disadvantage of sufficient magnitude to make it a bit silly to use the method I've selected for the specific purpose I have in mind. I mean recording as planned to my hard-drive and, at the dance, just clicking on the constructed file and letting it go for 4 hours would seem to attain my purpose reasonably well.

 

As I asked before, is there something completely disadvantageous that I'm missing?

 

Regarding the use of wet-playing, I'm pretty well satisfied with the sound of the recordings played dry. I don't want to have to play them wet in any future playings.

 

Regards.

 

Jack

 

[d_deweywright]

Thanks for your continued interest, d_deweywright.

 

 

 

Now you have my curiosity aroused.

 

I'm assuming, from the previous posts on this thread, that what I have in mind will work, but you apparently see a disadvantage of sufficient magnitude to make it a bit silly to use the method I've selected for the specific purpose I have in mind. I mean recording as planned to my hard-drive and, at the dance, just clicking on the constructed file and letting it go for 4 hours would seem to attain my purpose reasonably well.

 

As I asked before, is there something completely disadvantageous that I'm missing?

 

Regarding the use of wet-playing, I'm pretty well satisfied with the sound of the recordings played dry. I don't want to have to play them wet in any future playings.

 

Regards.

 

Jack

Absolutely nothing wrong with recording to your hard drive and playing back from there. Excellent idea. But, you've indicated you're trying to create a single file with all four hours in one huge file. Why? Why not work with individual songs, then add them all into something like Media Player, and hit the "play" button and let it go for the whole four hours. My only question is, why just a single file?

 

Again, nothing wrong with playing from your laptop, DJs do that now. I just don't understand why you want to work with a single file, that's all.

[sknis]

Me either,

[jackowens]

Why not work with individual songs, then add them all into something like Media Player, and hit the "play" button and let it go for the whole four hours. My only question is, why just a single file?

 

I confess to not having a clear picture of the details of what you have in mind. Can you please explain further?

 

Starting with the given that I want to be able to turn the laptop on and let it go on automatically for 4 hours of music, each piece spaced 20 seconds apart, how would you go about achieving that? What you seem to have in mind is recording each piece, with title, as a an individual file (which is a good idea in itself as a backup of my records and what I'll probably do as time permits) and then putting the pieces together, in the sequence preferred, to make up the file I want to use.

 

Is that it? Or am I missing something.

 

 

[d_deweywright]

I confess to not having a clear picture of the details of what you have in mind. Can you please explain further?

 

Starting with the given that I want to be able to turn the laptop on and let it go on automatically for 4 hours of music, each piece spaced 20 seconds apart, how would you go about achieving that? What you seem to have in mind is recording each piece, with title, as a an individual file (which is a good idea in itself as a backup of my records and what I'll probably do as time permits) and then putting the pieces together, in the sequence preferred, to make up the file I want to use.

 

Is that it? Or am I missing something.

Close. Have you ever used Windows Media Player? Okay, never mind, I really don't like Windows Media Player, it simply doesn't work the way I think. Lets go with WinAmp. It's free, and once you turn off the silly internet stuff, it has a pretty small footprint and doesn't take too many resources.

 

So, you have your 80 songs or so, and they're all named with a 2 digit prefix in the order you want, as in:

 

01. song1.wav

02. song2.wav

03. song3.wav

.

.

.

80. song80.wav

 

Now, somewhere along the way, you also created a 20 second track of silence, called hmm... "silence.wav".

 

In Winamp, you simply start dragging your songs into the playlist. If you don't get them in order, no problem at this point, you just tell it to sort the list by name, and with the two digit prefix, they're all ordered.

 

Now you just start dragging silence.wav into the playlist between each track, and when your done, the list will look more-or-less like this:

 

01. song1.wav

silence.wav

02. song2.wav

silence.wav

03. song3.wav

silence.wav

.

.

.

silence.wav

80. song80.wav

 

At this point, you could tell Winamp to save the playlist (just so you wouldn't have to rebuild it in the future), and then you hit the "Play" button. Winamp starts at the first song, and finishes with the eightieth. (That looks funny, spelled out that way.) I'm sure the same thing can be done with Windows Media Player, but at this point, it eludes me a bit. (You'd probably need 79 copies of silence.wav, numbered 02, 04, 06, and your songs would want to be odd numbered, 01, 03, 05...)

 

Oh yes, and if you're nearing the end of the 4 hours, and the party is still going strong, you can go into Winamps options and turn "repeat" on, and it'll start over at the beginning.

 

Just a bunch of songs, added to a program that will play them, in the order you want. That's what I'm suggesting.

 

Does that help?

 

 

[jackowens]

Dear Friends,

 

Thanks for all the information regarding my project. I think I have a pretty good grasp of my options now.

 

For my part, and unless someone else wants to continue it, we can close out the thread.

 

Again, thanks very much.

 

Regards to all,

 

Jack Owens

[Jim_Hardin]

Dear Friends,

 

Thanks for all the information regarding my project. I think I have a pretty good grasp of my options now.

 

For my part, and unless someone else wants to continue it, we can close out the thread.

 

Again, thanks very much.

 

Regards to all,

 

Jack Owens

OK!

 

If you have a problem, you know where to come